IFLOLS accuracy?

[markturner1960]

Hi, I would interested to see what others think as to how accurate the IFLOLS is currently....

 

of course, there may some issues here with my inputs, but I am finding that trying to fly the ball pretty much always results in coming in too high if its centered and I get a better result relying on my intuition....

[sora_061]

Same here. I'm still noob at Carrier Ops, following IFLOLS litterally makes me fly by the Carrier. I just use my intuition, and do my normal landings which I do in Stennis and it's 3 wire maximum time. If it is a bug, Hope it gets fixed.

 

On that note, Having bugs in hard procedures like Carrier ops or even Aerial refueling can be really bad for heart, and may induce huge amount of rage. smh

 

 

Sent from my Redmi K20 Pro using Tapatalk

[AndyJWest]

See earlier thread on the same issue. Something definitely seems off:

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=277591

[Greyman]

Is it like this on both the F18 and F14, I only have the former, or is there a difference between the two? Would the IFLOLS be set the same for each of those aircraft?

[sora_061]

Is it like this on both the F18 and F14, I only have the former, or is there a difference between the two? Would the IFLOLS be set the same for each of those aircraft?

As far as I m aware both aircraft AOA is different, so there IFLOLS will also be different, F-14 doesn't get proper IFLOLS now. If you hop into LSO, you'll see Aircraft type (only F/a-18 is choosen there), Choosing F-14 will change the camera angle and IFLOLS angle as per F-14.

 

Sent from my Redmi K20 Pro using Tapatalk

[TonyG]

I fly the ball exclusively in coordination with Airboss and am getting OK to _OK_ scores regularly with both.

 

Works with both the Hornet and the Tomcat for me. We routinely have a guy on the LSO platform and these passes are centered on the platcam all the way in. We have multiple guys that are trapping like this with no issues at all.

[G B]

Is it like this on both the F18 and F14, I only have the former, or is there a difference between the two? Would the IFLOLS be set the same for each of those aircraft?

 

 

The hook-to-eye value has to be set for the IFLOLS for each type of aircraft. Otherwise, each type of aircraft's hook would touchdown in a different place for a centered ball at touchdown.

[Greyman]

The hook-to-eye value has to be set for the IFLOLS for each type of aircraft. Otherwise, each type of aircraft's hook would touchdown in a different place for a centered ball at touchdown.

 

Thanks for that.

 

So might that explain the apparent inaccuracy that peeps are experiencing? For example, if the IFLOLS is set for an F18 and the aircraft landing is an F14?

[AndyJWest]

Thanks for that.

 

So might that explain the apparent inaccuracy that peeps are experiencing? For example, if the IFLOLS is set for an F18 and the aircraft landing is an F14?

 

It wouldn't explain why the ICLS and the IFLOLS contradict each other close in, for the Hornet. See the screenshot from SnapRoll here, which started the discussion in the other thread:

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4379803&postcount=1

 

I've had exactly the same result:

 

IFLOLS is showing way low. ICLS is showing marginally high. AoA is good. As is pitch angle (the W index is at 5°, as it should be with 8.5° AoA and a 3.5° glideslope). No wind, so level deck. Carrier was doing 25 kt. I caught the 4th wire, which is consistent with me being a little high.

[G B]

It wouldn't explain why the ICLS and the IFLOLS contradict each other close in, for the Hornet. See the screenshot from SnapRoll here, which started the discussion in the other thread:

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4379803&postcount=1

 

I've had exactly the same result:

 

IFLOLS is showing way low. ICLS is showing marginally high. AoA is good. As is pitch angle (the W index is at 5°, as it should be with 8.5° AoA and a 3.5° glideslope). No wind, so level deck. Carrier was doing 25 kt. I caught the 4th wire, which is consistent with me being a little high.

 

On speed AOA is 8.1. The “waterline” W symbol isn’t really referenced for this at all if you have a working INS.

 

Edit: Misread the picture on my small phone.

 

Edit: one must be careful when using subjective terms like “marginally high” and “way low.” That’s fairly unscientific. You’d need to actually look at the true glideslope measurements of each source for the true answer (I.E. the width of the glideslope of each cell of the IFLOLS at each distance from the source; the width of the glideslope per “unit of deflection” of the glideslope needle at each distance from the source).

Edited June 13, 2020 by G B

[BMGZ06]

This is an interesting topic for sure and one that I have experienced many times now coming in on what I think is a perfect centered ball with 650-750ft decent rate and then miss the wires. This has caused me to develop a bad habit of setting up with the ball just below the datum lights and I normally catch a 3 or 4 wire.

 

For the sake of fun here is a cool old training video of how the older FLOL system was calibrated. It may still be done in a similar way I dont know but I doubt it.

 

 

[AndyJWest]

@G B: I agree that ICLS shouldn't matter if you are in the groove. The fact is however that the screenshot shows me as being low according to IFLOLS, yet I caught the 4th wire.

 

As for science, or rather maths (this is a geometry problem), I'd agree that better data would help. If we had it. Meanwhile we can only go on what we have, and if I follow IFLOLS all the way to the deck (as per NATOPS), I miss the wires. Maybe there is something else going on, if other people aren't having the same issue, but it seems pretty consistent to me.

[G B]

@G B: I agree that ICLS shouldn't matter if you are in the groove. The fact is however that the screenshot shows me as being low according to IFLOLS, yet I caught the 4th wire.

 

As for science, or rather maths (this is a geometry problem), I'd agree that better data would help. If we had it. Meanwhile we can only go on what we have, and if I follow IFLOLS all the way to the deck (as per NATOPS), I miss the wires. Maybe there is something else going on, if other people aren't having the same issue, but it seems pretty consistent to me.

 

 

I edited my last comment. My apologies, I misread the picture on my small phone. Yeah the disparity is not insignificant.

 

 

 

To be fair, IRL, discrepancies like that are not uncommon in the groove like that. Just miscalibrations that dont get better over time. As far as the data we're talking about, it is published out there (as I've learned it)...but I do not know if it is available for public consumption.

 

 

I do now see your frustration. A low ball at touchdown should not equal a 4 wire. HOWEVER, depending on your energy state, a low ball in-close with power added in the last second of the pass *could* have you float over the wires (what the LSO would call "flat" with the symbol "B") to snag the 4th. A video would be much stronger data for this particular case.

[AndyJWest]

Yeah, a video would probably demonstrate the issue better. I've got a track of that landing, but ideally what is needed is a live recording, with the control inputs showing. I'll see if I can come up with one.

 

As for energy state, and adding power, you're right - though I don't think I did that, since I was deliberately following what ICLS said, rather then the ball, and had no reason to. Maybe I was a little early with the full-throttle-at the wire move, since I'd got rather used to getting bolters. I should probably repeat the test several times, and see if that may be part of the problem.

 

Regarding this, I've been looking at what TacView has to show too, and it may be helpful. From a quick look, there isn't any obvious sign of me flattening out in the landing I got the screenshot of, and I don't seem to have been accelerating before the aircraft pitched down as it hit the deck. A note of caution though - there seem to be discrepancies in TacView that make trying to analyse what happens over short timescales problematic.

[markturner1960]

OK, I guess it really needs some tracks uploaded for someone who knows to pronounce upon.... as I said in my OP, its entirely possible it's my flying, but prior to the SC coming out, I used Banklers mission and did not really fly the ball on the carrier, as it was tricky to see, and I was regularly getting sixties and over....

 

Using the SC IFOLS, my grades are way lower and obviously I want to do it properly, fly the ball......but this is not good if it flies you over the wires or into the ramp!! which seems to happen a lot when I try and follow the IFOLS now.....

[Greyman]

Do the IFLOLS on the ship and the recently added overlay disagree or are they both wrong?

[markturner1960]

I am only looking at the overlay.......

[oldcrusty]

I am only looking at the overlay.......

 

I finally mustered enough courage to edit a file and got rid of the overlay.

Thanks to the person that posted the instructions on how to do it... too insignificant for ED to make it an option.:glare:

 

Now, if I could figure out how to change the IFLOLS glow from a distance. Trial and error? Someone probably had it figured out on day 1. Anyone tried it?

[Airbusjoerg]

I also have a strange feeling about the precision of the overlay. In my case its rather different: no matter how precise I fly the ball, for the last 5 seconds or so it always feels as if the glideslope makes a bend downwards, i.e. while my flight attitude and speed remains stable, for the last seconds the ball sinks away rapidly downwards.

 

If I maintain the flight vector nevertheless, I end up somewhere behind the 4th Wire. If I try to follow the ball to touchdown, I have to cut the power and consequently make a 3PTS (and get a "C"). It could be me, but that's been going on for weeks now (I practice daily). Maybe I'm just too stupid.

Edited June 14, 2020 by Airbusjoerg

[AndyJWest]

I also have a strange feeling about the precision of the overlay. In my case its rather different: no matter how precise I fly the ball, for the last 5 seconds or so it always feels as if the glideslope makes a bend downwards, i.e. while my flight attitude and speed remains stable, for the last seconds the ball sinks away rapidly downwards.

 

If I maintain the flight vector nevertheless, I end up somewhere behind the 4th Wire. If I try to follow the ball to touchdown, I have to cut the power and consequently make a 3PTS (and get a "C"). It could be me, but that's been going on for weeks now (I practice daily). Maybe I'm just too stupid.

 

Yup, that's my impression too, at least some of the time. i have a suspicion though that there is something else going on, possibly related to things that shouldn't really be affecting the IFLOLS at all - possibly the wind speed and direction and/or the speed of the ship. I'm going to continue to look into this, and see if I can narrow it down.

[Airbusjoerg]

I'm going to continue to look into this, and see if I can narrow it down.

 

Great, I´m not alone. It seems there is a whole bunch of problems. Sometimes the LSO calls "You´re low" but the IFLOLS shows perfect glidepath. Sometimes the LSO gives a "wrong" 3PTS (there is a thread in the bugs section).

 

Also, I sometimes somehow get the impression that the groove starts higher than before. I mean, halfway in the final turn I should be a aprox 450ft... I found this way to low in Supercarrier, I always have to get a good 100ft higher out of this curve to catch the ball perfectly.

 

I've been practicing Banker's mission extremely often. I wasn't perfect, but I was pretty good. The SuperCarrier feels so different to me that I still haven't gotten used to it since its release. Cant explain. The numbers feel different, the groove, the F-18 itself too. The last 5 seconds of my landings are always terrible because something feels wrong - or at least different from what I had practiced for months.

[Talonx1]

Agreed that glideslope on the SC is off you have to be a good bit high entering the groove or it calls you low. And often lso will be telling me I'm low and overlay says I'm low and I'll actually be so high I miss all 4 wires. Had no issue w regular 3 wire traps on old carrier and finding SC very inconsistant.

[mattag08]

I fly with an air wing of over 20 pilots. All are able to fly the ball and land on the carrier using the IFLOLS. I've personally trained about ten people to land via the US Navy's CV training manuals and have had all of them land properly utilizing the ball and trap 2-4 wires with normal passes. The issue in this thread is one of technique. I spent many hours and hundreds of passes getting good. So will you.

 

The only issue with the ball atm is it is too low on the deck, which has already been reported as a bug.

[Airbusjoerg]

All are able to fly the ball and land on the carrier using the IFLOLS.

 

So am I.

 

My problem is that I try to interpret the LSO's ratings and learn from them. Since the majority of my evaluations are "ungraded", I have taken a closer look at them (and of course continued to practice!). Unfortunately I came across "inconsistencies", e.g. a 3PTS although it is clearly visible in the replay that this was not the case. Or "to low" calls at the beginning, although the ball is centered.

[Flamin_Squirrel]

So am I.

 

My problem is that I try to interpret the LSO's ratings and learn from them. Since the majority of my evaluations are "ungraded", I have taken a closer look at them (and of course continued to practice!). Unfortunately I came across "inconsistencies", e.g. a 3PTS although it is clearly visible in the replay that this was not the case. Or "to low" calls at the beginning, although the ball is centered.

 

Whether the LSO calls match the IFLOLS is a separate issue to whether the IFLOLS is accurate though.